From: Steve Peterson (speterson@fast.net)
Date: Mon Oct 21 2002 - 17:25:32 BST
> Steve said:
> In trying to find Biblical support for the Jesus movement as a conflict
> between intellect and society, so often I am reminded of Jesus seeming to
> sidestep social level questions for something completely different that few
> could understand and I have trouble seeing as intellectual improvements on
> social code.
Steve adds: I didn't mean to say that he was anti-intellectual or pro-social
in these examples. I meant that his purpose was not to critique society or
to improve society with intellectual products, but to talk about something
that has nothing to do with society.
>
> DMB says:
> I think the sense of divine equality expressed in the quote extends a
> certain dignity and respect for every individual. And it seems like no
> accident that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the rights we all
> share equally, is said to have been endowed by the creator. Even on a mythic
> and dramatic level, Jesus is a herald of the intellect, being tortured and
> killed for nothing more than speaking his mind. He's Socrates on a stick.
> That's the intellectual improvement on the social code. It speaks to freedom
> of belief and conscience as well as the cruelty and injustice of society.
Steve says:
I don't think we necessarily disagree. I was trying to say what John B said
about Jesus' teachings often falling outside the moq levels, but I must not
have said it very well because John didn't seem to notice, either.
Recall that I followed that paragraph with:
"Which law is the greatest? Out of all our social code, what rule is most
important? None of the above. Love God. DQ. If you don't know what this
means, then love your neighbor, you'll get there.
Should we pay our taxes to the Romans or be true to our Jewish society?
Give to Caesar what is Caesar's. Give to God what is God's. (What belongs
to God? Everything!) Talk about tapping into DQ!"
In a way, I don't think he answered the question of whether any taxes should
be paid. In another way he did, he said this is the wrong question to be
asking. My point was as John was suggesting, that Jesus can be viewed as a
mystic. In the question of which law is the most important, Jesus showed no
interest in the law. Jesus the mystic said, "forget about the law, pursue
DQ (God). The mystic's answer to moral questions is simple--just make
yourself perfect and do whatever comes naturally--but it is too simple. So
he added If you don't know how to pursue DQ, "all the law will fall into
place if you love your neighbor, so do that."
Wherever he took a side in the social-intellectual conflict, I think he took
the intellectual side, but I think there is also a biblical vision of Jesus
that wasn't interested in social questions like whether the Jews should pay
taxes to the Romans. To ask him that question was to miss the point of what
this mystic was trying to teach: "The Kingdom of God is within you." Find
it and you won't have anymore questions.
IMO if Jesus were alive today, he wouldn't settle our debates on capital
punishment, abortion, euthanasia, etc. If asked, I think he would give some
sort of "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" response. He was not known
for giving straight answers.
All this is not to say that we can't learn from Jesus how to create a
stronger society that respects individuals. But, what we learned (though
valuable) may be different from what he was trying to teach.
This is also not to say that the view of Jesus as a mystic is the only one
or even the most defensible through biblical scholarship. I only meant to
point out that there is a vision of Jesus portrayed in the Bible that
doesn't fall in the moral hierarchy of moq.
Steve
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:38:00 GMT